Just because it is open source does not me (a) that your changes will be mainlined, (b) that your changes will be even considered or (c) that you will logistically be able to maintain an ongoing fork.
Saying "it's open source so you can just add feature X or change feature B" only works if you are part of some core team or are respected via other means. Github is littered with projects that have lots of Pull Requests that never get pulled.
> Just because it is open source does not me (a) that your changes will be mainlined, (b) that your changes will be even considered or (c) that you will logistically be able to maintain an ongoing fork.
Or d) that I have any time in my life to undertake such work.
I'd argue that making the changes you desire in an open-source project and forking the project is immeasurably more productive than complaining about it on HN. (IMHO)
There are many cases where project forks become more popular than the original project itself.
This is an odd comment considering the entire point of this discussion is that a bad choice has been foisted on the project and criticism flatly rejected by the core team. Why do you believe a "better solution" would be accepted?
